Home⇛Romblon State University Research Journal⇛vol. 6 no. 2 (2024)

Examining the Effects of Metacognitive Awareness on the Reading Comprehension Skills of Grade 7 Students

Clarren Ann G. Vicente | Philip R Baldera

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study examines the effects of metacognitive awareness on the reading comprehension skills of Grade 7 students at Odiongan National High School, Odiongan, Romblon, addressing a crucial gap in existing literature. With reading comprehension skills being fundamental to academic success, understanding the role of metacognitive awareness becomes imperative. Grounded in Flavell's Metacognition Theory, this research aims to investigate the level of metacognitive awareness and its effects on reading comprehension skills with a descriptive-causal approach. Methodologically, a quantitative approach was used, utilizing reading comprehension assessments alongside a modified Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) adapted from Schraw & Dennison (1994). Using a four-point Likert-type rating scale questionnaire, students rated their metacognitive awareness, divided into Metacognitive Knowledge (MK) and Metacognitive Regulation (MR). Metacognitive knowledge encompasses declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge, while Metacognitive Regulation involves planning, monitoring, and evaluating. Using stratified random sampling, 198 respondents were selected out of 401 Grade 7 students, preceded by a pilot study with 20 respondents to refine research instruments and assess the validity and reliability. Furthermore, data were collected, processed, and analyzed using a statistical tool called Multiple Linear Regression. The results show that metacognitive awareness is positively correlated with the reading comprehension skills of Grade 7 students. This suggests the pivotal role of metacognitive awareness in enhancing reading comprehension skills.



References:

  1. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P., & Paris, S. (2017). Skills and strategies: Their differences, their relationships, and why they matter. In K. Mokhtari (Ed.), Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading instruction (pp. 33–48). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  2. Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L. S., Dominowski, R. L., & Rellinger, E. R. (1995). Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.205
  3. Bilbao, M., Donguilla, C., & Vasay, M. (2016). Level of reading comprehension of the education students. International Journal of Liberal Arts, Education, Social Sciences and Philosophical Studies, 4(1), 342–353.
  4. Brown, A. L. (2017). Metacognitive development and reading. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453–482). Routledge.
  5. Burin, D. I., Gonzalez, F. M., Barreyro, J. P., & Injoque-Ricle, I. (2020). Metacognitive regulation contributes to digital text comprehension in E-learning. Metacognition and Learning, 15(3), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09226-8
  6. Caballero, E. (2008). Comprensión lectora de los textos argumentativos en niños de poblaciones vulnerables escolarizados en quinto grado de educación básica primaria. Retrieved from http://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/dspace/bitstream/10495/188/6/EsmeraldaCaballero_2008_compresionlectora.pdf
  7. Carrell, P. L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.21.1.01car
  8. Cimmiyotti, C. (2013). Impact of reading ability on academic performance at the primary level [Master’s thesis]. Dominican University of California. https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2013.edu.18
  9. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
  10. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093599
  11. Falah, I. F., Suherdi, D., & Muslim, A. B. (2016). An inspired-TBLT framework to enhance students’ speaking performances in EFL context. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 7(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.22460/eltin.v11i1.p77-86
  12. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Routledge.
  13. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.
  14. Frazier, L. D., Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (2021). The MAPS model of self-regulation: Integrating metacognition, agency, and possible selves. Metacognition and Learning, 16(2), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09255-3
  15. Graham, L., & Bellert, A. (2004). Difficulties in reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities. In Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 251–279). Academic Press.
  16. Hammad, E. (2023). Al-Aqsa university students' use of metacognitive reading strategies in relation to their English reading comprehension competence. An-Najah University Journal for Research - B (Humanities), 37(2), 285–324. https://doi.org/10.35552/0247-037-002-006
  17. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3–4), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1987.9653052
  18. Juan, R. S. (2019). DepEd welcomes PISA results, recognizes “gaps” in education quality. Philstar.com. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/12/04/1974229/deped-welcomes-pisa-results-recognizes-gaps-education-quality
  19. Karwowski, M., Czerwonka, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). Does intelligence strengthen creative metacognition? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(3), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000208
  20. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
  21. Khellab, F., Demirel, Ö., & Mohammadzadeh, B. (2022). Effect of teaching metacognitive reading strategies on reading comprehension of engineering students. SAGE Open, 12(4), 215824402211380. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221138069
  22. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2015). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning difficulties. Guilford Publications.
  23. León Cascón, J. A. (2003). Conocimiento y discurso: claves para inferir y comprender. Ediciones Pirámide.
  24. Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<837::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-E
  25. Luz, J. M. (2007). A nation of nonreaders. Literature and literacy. Philippine Center of Investigative Journalism.
  26. Maryam, I. S., Ihrom, S. M., & Nurlaelawati, I. (2019). The correlation between metacognitive reading strategies and reading comprehension among 1st year EFL students at a public university in West Java. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2018) (pp. 298–302). https://doi.org/10.2991/conaplin-18.2019.298
  27. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
  28. Muhid, A., Amalia, E. R., Hilaliyah, H., Budiana, N., & Wajdi, M. B. N. (2020). The effect of metacognitive strategies implementation on students’ reading comprehension achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 847–862. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13257a
  29. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
  30. Ngoc, N. T. K. (2022). Metacognitive strategies on reading English texts of non-English majored students at Dong Nai Technology University, Vietnam: A mixed design. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(3), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.32996/jeltal.2022.4.2.12
  31. Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596583
  32. Nobles, L. M. A. G., & Ortega-Dela Cruz, R. A. (2020). Making connections: A metacognitive teaching strategy in enhancing students’ reading comprehension. Journal of English Education, 5(1), 49–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.31327/jee.v5i1.1209
  33. Norman, E., Pfuhl, G., Sæle, R. G., Svartdal, F., Låg, T., & Dahl, T. I. (2019). Metacognition in psychology. Review of General Psychology, 23(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019883821
  34. Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different? Fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002
  35. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
  36. O'malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner‐Manzanares, G. L. O. R. I. A., Russo, R. P., & Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557–584. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586278
  37. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
  38. Winne, P. H. (2018). Theorizing and researching levels of processing in self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12173
  39. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). University of Nebraska Press.
  40. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. What research has to say about reading instruction, 3, 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1598/0872071774.13
  41. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  42. Rajasagaran, S., & Ismail, H. H. (2022). Utilizing explicit teaching of metacognitive strategies in honing reading skills among ESL and EFL learners: A review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(3), 1138–1158. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v11-i3/14997
  43. Reza Ahmadi, M., Nizam Ismail, H., & Kamarul Kabilan Abdullah, M. (2013). The importance of metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p235
  44. Roebers, C. (2017). Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying framework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review, 45, 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2017.04.001
  45. Roebers, C., & Spiess, M. (2017). The development of metacognitive monitoring and control in second graders: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18, 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2016.1157079
  46. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1/2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033
  47. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
  48. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2
  49. Sinom, P. A., Paulus, & Kuswandono, P. (2022). Indonesian EFL undergraduate students’ interest towards metacognitive strategy in reading academic comprehension. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i1.728
  50. Sutiyatno, S., & Sukarno, M. S. (2019). A survey study: The correlation between metacognitive strategies and reading achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(4), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0904.11
  51. Tantowie, T. A., Sunendar, D., Rahman, R., & Hartati, T. (2022). The role of metacognition (metacomprehension) and inferential ability on reading comprehension ability. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(11), 262–281. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.11.15
  52. Trainin, G., Hiebert, E. H., & Wilson, K. M. (2015). A comparison of reading rates, comprehension, and stamina in oral and silent reading of fourth-grade students. Reading Psychology, 36(7), 595–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2014.966183
  53. Wang, J., Spencer, K., Minjie, & Xing, M. (2009). Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. System, 37(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.05.001
  54. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 291–318). Routledge.
  55. Zepeda, C. D., Richey, J. E., Ronevich, P., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2015). Direct instruction of metacognition benefits adolescent science learning, transfer, and motivation: An in vivo study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 954–970.
  56. Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use and academic reading achievement: Insights from a Chinese context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54–69.
  57. Zhou, P. (2022). Lageo: A latent and geometrical framework for path and manipulation planning [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Hongkong State University.
  58. Zhou, P., Liu, Y., Zhao, M., & Lou, X. (2017). A proof of concept study for criminal network analysis with interactive strategies. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 27(4), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021819401750026X

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic